Edwina, List: 1. Who said anything about "fame" or "extensive analysis," and what relevance do they have anyway? You straightforwardly asserted that the Five Ways "form the analytic backbone of theistic Arguments for the Reality of God," and that they constitute "The Argument," but both of these statements are patently false. I trust that the irony is not lost on anyone of an atheist dictating to two theists (Gary R. and myself) which kinds of arguments we *must *employ to defend our belief in God--conveniently, arguments that you have already dismissed as "inadequate." Not all theists are Christians, not all Christians are Roman Catholics--Gary is an Episcopalian, and I am a Lutheran--and not all Roman Catholics are Thomists; so imposing the Five Ways, as identified by Aquinas and grounded in a number of very specific (and controversial) metaphysical presuppositions, as the *only *available intellectual defense of theism is completely absurd.
2a. I ask once more--what should we call Peirce's very explicitly expressed view that God is Real, if not theistic? He certainly *did not* "reject[] the traditional definition as incomprehensible"; on the contrary, as carefully stated in the third quote that I provided below, God is "that Being who possesses those Attributes which I take to be most essential to the traditional notion"; and it was not this definition that he called "incomprehensible," but "His nature." Similarly ... CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself more and more, and without limit. (CP 6.466, EP 2:439; 1908) CSP: "God" is a vernacular word and, like all such words, but more than almost any, is vague. No words are so well understood as vernacular words, in one way; yet they are invariably vague; and of many of them it is true that, let the logician do his best to substitute precise equivalents in their places, still the vernacular words alone, for all their vagueness, answer the principal purposes. This is emphatically the case with the very vague word "God," which is not made less vague by saying that it imports "infinity," etc., since those attributes are at least as vague. (CP 6.494; c. 1906) The Five Ways are *deductive *arguments for a fairly *definite* conception of God, which (again) is not shared by all Roman Catholics, let alone all Christians, much less all theists. By contrast, Peirce offered a *retroductive *argument for a fairly *vague *conception of God, which is widely shared by most (perhaps all) theists. 2b. Peirce *did not *associate God as Mind--capitalized, not mind as the primordial "stuff" of the universe, such that "matter is effete mind" (CP 6.25; 1891)--with all three Categories; on the contrary, as carefully stated in the third quote that I provided below, he described God as "so little like a singular Existent" (2ns) "and so opposed in His Nature to an ideal possibility" (1ns) "that we may loosely say that He is a Spirit, or Mind" (3ns). Where did Peirce *ever *write about God in terms of matter, let alone "Matter-as-Self Organized"? He indeed objected to calling God "a Supreme Being," but for precisely the opposite reason that you are claiming. CSP: Hume, in his *Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion*, justly points out that the phrase "Supreme Being" is not an equivalent of "God," since it neither implies infinity nor any of the other attributes of God, excepting only Being and Supremacy. (CP 6.494; c. 1906) "Supreme Being" does not do adequate justice to the *other *traditional attributes of God, besides Being and Supremacy, including infinity. Regards, Jon S. On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, list > > 1] Peirce's 'Neglected Argument' is hardly comparable to the fame and > extensive analysis done on the Five Ways - with many books and > articles about these as theistic arguments. Therefore, the Five Ways is not > 'one approach', a comment by which you trivialize its hundreds of > years within both religious and philosophical research and literature. > > 2] Peirce's outline of God is not, in my view, a theistic one nor is it an > argument, but is instead, purely semantic. He rejects the traditional > definition as incomprehensible - and we all know that he said that it is > useless to 'know' the incomprehensible. Instead - Peirce defines 'god' as, > instead, Mind. And his analysis of Mind is always as a functioning of all > three Categorical Modes: Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. That's it. > And that definition is as far removed from any theistic concept of a > Supreme Power as it could be, since it moves Power, so to speak, within > all of Matter-as-Self Organized. > > Edwina > > On Sat 12/05/18 10:02 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > 1. The Five Ways constitute one approach to arguing for the existence > (or Reality) of God, but it is a considerable overstatement to call them > "the analytic backbone of theistic Arguments" or (especially) "The > Argument" as if there were no others--like Peirce's "Neglected Argument," > for example. > > 2. If Peirce was not a theist, then what other term should we use instead > for someone who very explicitly, on more than one occasion, in no uncertain > terms, affirmed his belief in the Reality of God? > > So, then, the question being whether I believe in the reality of God, I > answer, Yes. (CP 6.496; c. 1906) > > The word "God," so "capitalized" (as we Americans say), is the definable > proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator of > all three Universes of Experience. (CP 6.452; 1908) > > By the proper name, God, I shall refer to that Being who possesses those > Attributes which I take to be most essential to the traditional notion; > that is to say, while His nature is incomprehensible, He doubtless has > Attributes called by proper extension of the terms Omniscience, > Omnipotence, and Infinite Benignity ... But I had better add that I do not > mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who > has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world > of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception > whatever. For the argument that I am to consider; and which, by the way, I > will designate as 'The Neglected Argument,' would not be true of any other > being than God. But I do not, by 'God,' mean, with some writers, a being > so inscrutable that nothing at all can be known of Him. I suppose most of > our knowledge of Him must be by similitudes. Thus, He is so much like a > mind, and so little like a singular Existent (meaning by an Existent, or > object that Exists, a thing subject to brute constraints, and reacting with > all other Existents,) and so opposed in His Nature to an ideal possibility, > that we may loosely say that He is a Spirit, or Mind. (R 843; 1908) > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Gary, list: >> >> 1] The 'Five Ways' or Quinque viae, refers to the very famous purely >> logical arguments by the scholastics [ Aquinas Summa Theologiciae but see >> also Anselm's Proslogian] for the reality of God. I know that JAS didn't >> refer to these arguments but I am very sure as a theist himself that he >> would have to know of them; after all - they form the analytic backbone of >> theistic Arguments for the Reality of God. It isn't enough to say: >> I believe God exists'; that's not an argument but a Fixation of Belief from >> ...a priori, Authority..whatever. There has to be an Argument - and the >> Five Ways is The Argument. I consider each one actually illogical and >> thus inadequate, but...many accept them...and there have been over the >> years, many volumes devoted to both support and rejection of the Five Ways. >> >> 2] I disagree with you that Peirce was a theist. His references to >> 'Mind', do not, in my reading, outline it or even examine it as the Mind of >> God. After all- to do so, would require an analysis of God himself - and >> Peirce doesn't do this. His cosmological arguments, his evolutionary >> arguments do not outline this 'Reality', this metaphysical Being. Instead - >> what he outlines in his analysis of What is Matter/Life.....are the three >> basic categories of MIND: Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. He sees >> them as 'ens necessarium' in themselves and I see no correlation of these >> operations with any specific Mind of God'. >> >> 3] As for Judeo-Christian traditions, I consider these societal rather >> than religious traditions. All religions, after all, besides their >> metaphysical outlines, are methods of forming and continuing a sense of >> 'community'. Our species is a social species - and this sense of belonging >> to a community is vital for our rational and psychological health. Anyone >> who lacks this - is a psychopath. >> >> So- we'll have to disagree on this issue. >> >> Edwina >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
